Talk:Reissue

Hmmm I never noticed before but why does Doki Doki Panic have a page but not Panel De Pon?- User:Zedxclon

Italics?

Should the game titles included in parentheses be italicized? The titles that are just being listed look fine as they are, but for the Mario Bros. section, SMA and M&L:SS look wrong without being italicized, seeing as they're not listed, but part of a statement. However, that might end up looking inconsistant instead, and I don't think italicizing everything is the right way to go either. Thoughts? - Walkazo 20:54, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

New! Play Control?

How are those game remakes? They're port with tacked-on waggle if anything. --Glowsquid 16:13, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

The rewrite of the article

I began a rewrite a long time ago. As you can see, I have not completed it. Here is a couple of things that needs to be done:

• add the platform and the release date of the reissues and original games
• explain why each game is considered a reissue
• move all the "Others" in the appropriate subsections.
• know if Tetris DS is a remake
• know if we can talk about BS Panel De Pon - Event '98, a remake of a "game not originally in the Mario series

If you'd like to help, you can do one of these things.
Banon (talk · edits) 12:00, 20 August 2013 (EDT)

Might need some images as well and an overall organization. It's me, Mario! (Talk / Stalk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (EDT)

Yep. I had began something... but I haven't finished. My idea was that every reissue was sorted by kind of reissue (remake, port...), and then, by date. Do you want another organization?
Banon (talk · edits) 17:17, 3 September 2013 (EDT)

Mario Golf (GBC) isn't a reissue. It's a completely different game to the N64 original. Giffy Stylish! 11:21, 27 December 2013 (EST)

You're right, I've removed it.
Banon (talk · edits) 12:38, 27 December 2013 (EST)

Misuse of "reissue"

Why the change from "Remake" to "Reissue" for the category? I'm pretty sure the latter is now being used wrongly - a "reissue" is something sent back out in the world with few or no changes - the Virtual Console versions of most games, for instance. Whereas the 1994 Game Boy version of Donkey Kong is (for the first four levels) a remake of the arcade Donkey Kong, not a reissue or port (hell, the NES version is a remake too, owing to the legal fighting over who owned the source code).

Basically:

1. A game allowed to go out of print and then brought back out is a reissue.
2. A game given new packaging (e.g., Player's Choice) is a reissue
3. A game emulated directly from the original code (e.g., Virtual Console, the Wii disc version of Super Mario All-Stars) is a reissue.

A game recoded, redesigned or upgraded is not a reissue. It may or may not be a remake, but it's still a different thing and shouldn't be on this page or category. For instance, In no way, shape or form is Super Mario Bros. Special a "reissue" of Super Mario Bros. in any way that Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels isn't. It isn't even a remake, it's a different game that shares some features. [Frankly, I'm not even certain there needs to BE a "reissue" page.]

(There are also partial remakes embedded in other games too - the Throwback Galaxy from Super Mario Galaxy 2, and the first star in particular, is a remake of Whomp's Fortress from Super Mario 64.) - Reboot (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2016 (EST)

I removed the fals SMB Special listing and I agree the current name isn't ideal, but I do think there needs to be a page making a distinction between the different types of "When a game is rereleased or remade in some form". What do you propose as a term that englobes everything the current page covers? --Glowsquid (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2016 (EST)

If we're just talking about the distinction, I would do it on a remake page.

If you want a list page of all games which have been rereleased, ported ("enhanced" or emulated) or remade... hasn't virtually every Mario game that Nintendo owns the right to rerelease BEEN rereleased in these days of download/Virtual Console releases? Games which have been remade or radically changed in some way in the rerelease (All-Stars, DK94, Game & Watch Gallery, Mario Advance, SM64 DS, etc) have something to discuss. Games with straight reissues/rereleases can just be categorised as such, and listed on the page of the reissue brand, like Player's Choice or Virtual Console. - Reboot (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2016 (EST)

The Virtual console ports only get a very brief section called "Virtual Console" which incites the reader to go to the relevant article to see the Games ported. Other ports are worth mentioning, even though in most cases, there is not much to say about the differences. Renaming the page "Remake" would be a mistake, but I agree "Reissue" isn't perfect. For reference, see this forum thread and User:Banon/Work for the current organization of the page
Banon (talk · edits) 07:57, 2 January 2016 (EST)

category of remakes

I think more research needs to be done to find out which titles were remakes. just because a lot of changes were made does not necessarily mean it is a remake. the only indicator is if the game was built from scratch or not. I have said many times that games such A Link to the Past/Four Swords and The Wind Waker HD are erroneously labeled as remakes when clearly they are not. Final Fantasy 3 and 4 on the DS were remakes.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingArgorok (talk).

I think the way this page is organised is a bit screwy, but I don't think the code basis should be the *sole* indicator of if something is classified as a remake or not. If it was, the GBA versions of the Donkey Kong Country games would count as remakes. --Glowsquid (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2018 (EST)

If that it the case then a game coded from scratch even if it is similar is a remake. it all depends if it was built from the ground up or not.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingArgorok (talk).

do your research before placing titles in these categories

Before considering which titles belong in each category, do your research on the history of its programming and where the source code originally came from because a remake is not a game that was simply changed. By that logic, the star wars special editions would be considered remakes, which they are not.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingArgorok (talk).

A film remake is not the same as a video game remake. According to wikipedia, "A video game remake (also called a remaster) is a video game closely adapted from an earlier title, usually for the purpose of modernizing a game for newer hardware and contemporary audiences. Typically, a remake of such game software shares essentially the same title, fundamental gameplay concepts, and core story elements of the original game." Therefore, the Star Wars Special Editions are not remakes, as you say, but games such as Super Mario 64 DS are.

Ultimate Mr. L (Talk-Contribs-Stats) 09:33, 11 January 2018 (EST)

P.S. Telling someone to "do their research" is rather rude and condescending.

That information is wrong. A remake means it must be coded from the ground up. You are using a source that is not necessarily reliable. I have been in the Zeldawiki (now Gamepedia) and they agreed with me that A Link to thr Past on the GBA was an enhanced port. I am telling you to do you research because you are relying on bad sources.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingArgorok (talk).

Zeldawiki is unreliable at times too, due to their circumnavigation of adblock, and the arbitrarity that the Link to the Past enemy "Coppie," called identified with the previous enemy "Goriya" in the west, is together with Goriya on that site, but "Zazak," an enemy identified with "Daira" in the west, does get its own separate page. Either way, we are not them. They are all similarly-defined terms, and what one community decides shouldn't affect another. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2018 (EST)

that it the case then a game coded from scratch even if it is similar is a remake

I don't think this is the most (or even a) popular definition for video game remakes nor is it a pertinent way for us to classify things and organise information. I'll elaborate why below.

That information is wrong. A remake means it must be coded from the ground up. You are using a source that is not necessarily reliable. I have been in the Zeldawiki (now Gamepedia) and they agreed with me that A Link to thr Past on the GBA was an enhanced port.

Out of curiosity, what makes this user-generated fan encyclopedia more reliable than the more generalist user-generated online encyclopedia? Especially since you haven't actually provided any authority proving your claim video game remake = exclusively refers to new code.

As far as I know, there's no universally-accepted ~supreme video game authority~ providing the one true definition of gaming terms. So, as with every words in the english language, the usage determines the meaning. Let's look at other websites atempt to define what a video game remake is (and yeah, I'm sure some will jeer at the notion of TV Tropes or Giant Bomb's userwiki being video game authorities, but I have no idea what would count as a "reliable source" in this case).

• Wikipedia: "A video game remake (also called a remaster) is a video game closely adapted from an earlier title, usually for the purpose of modernizing a game for newer hardware and contemporary audiences. Typically, a remake of such game software shares essentially the same title, fundamental gameplay concepts, and core story elements of the original game. [...] A remake offers a newer interpretation of an older work, characterized by updated or changed assets.[citation needed] A remake typically maintains the same story, genre, and fundamental gameplay ideas of the original work.[citation needed] The intent of a remake is usually to take an older game that has become outdated and update it for a new platform and audience.[citation needed] A remake may also include expanded stories, often to conform to the conventions of contemporary games or later titles in the same series in order to make a game marketable to a new audience."
• Giant Bomb: A broad spectrum of games can be described as remakes, from straightforward graphical overhauls to extensive revision of gameplay and story elements. In the most basic sense, a remake keeps the original's core gameplay and plot but makes significant changes to peripheral aspects.
• TV Tropes: " As computer technology and game design is constantly evolving, many titles may start to look and play extremely dated in comparison to what's available, say, five to ten years after its original release. So what's a developer to do? Easy: take the original game, upgrade the visuals so that they're on par with the current standards, add a few more recent gameplay mechanics, maybe fine-tune the levels a little, and presto, now you can convince the consumers to buy basically the same game they bought five to ten years ago! [...] Distinct from the Updated Re-release, because that's merely rereleasing the same game with modest additions and improvements, whereas this is recreating the entire game from the ground up on new technology"

So yeah, the recurring elements are 1: new version of a game, 2: has redone grafx, 3: is released some time away from the base game. 4) (usually) has a lot of new stuff. While the Wikipedia and TV Tropes pages mentions "has redone code" as an element, neither make it a core element of the definition. Another reason why I think using exclusively the "it has redone code" criteria is that it would result in a lot of old-school video game ports to be classified as "remakes". To take a non-Mario example, the Sega Saturn version of Quake was made in a completely different engine from the original PC version. It also has a new modest amount of new content, but nobody calls Saturn Quake a "remake" due to its close release to the original version and general straightforward transposition of the game. A "remake" usually implies some prolongated lapse in time from the original game as well as sizable amount of redone assets or new content.

Furthermore, "just do more research on where the code comes from" is a pretty silly suggestion, because it's realistically infeasible most of the time. Access to the code or the ability and ressources to reverse-engineer it is essentially unavailable to the outstanding majority of anyone who would edit an online fan wiki, and it's impossible for most people to access Nintendo employees who worked in a notable capacity on the major Mario games. Anyone who does have access to them will ask questions about say, the upcoming Super Mario Odyssey 4, not if Super Mario All Stars share a codebase with the NES version of SMB3. I also don't think shared quirks or bugs are necessarily an indicator game as particularly iconic or amusing non-breaking bugs may deliberatly be maintened in the new version or are the results of matching the physics/etc. properties of the original game as closely as possible. --Glowsquid (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2018 (EST)

?

Why is the article under construction? SONIC123CDMANIA+&K(B&ATSA) (talk) 09:17, February 21, 2023 (CST)